You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

August 18, 2017

Aircraft Repossession in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

For aircraft leasing companies, having to repossess an aircraft from an airline that misses its rental payments is usually an option of last resort. The repossession process in Thailand can be time-consuming and costly, and often precludes future earnings. However, as a number of Thai airlines have defaulted on their payments over recent years, lessors have been left with no choice but to seek recovery of their valuable assets. This article provides an overview of the practical and legal considerations of aircraft repossession in Thailand.

Thai law allows for repossession and re-exportation of an aircraft from Thailand for private and state-owned airlines. When a lessor terminates an aircraft lease agreement, the lessee’s legal right to possess that aircraft (their “possessory right”) ends. Thai law requires all civil aircraft to be registered with the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (the CAAT) in the name of the person with possessory rights. As terminating the lease changes those rights, it also invalidates the aircraft’s registration according to the Air Navigation Act B.E. 2497 (1954).

After terminating the lease agreement, a lessor can therefore submit a request for deregistration of the aircraft to the CAAT. In practice, the CAAT will normally ask the lessee (the airline) for confirmation of the termination of the lease and the change of possessory rights. In other words, the CAAT will ask if the airline “consents” to the deregistration. The best-case scenario for lessors is for the airline to give its consent—but this rarely happens. More often, the airline will refuse to give consent and use the opportunity to challenge the validity of the lease termination.

The CAAT must then use its own discretion to decide whether the lease has been terminated validly, and whether the possessory right has shifted from the airline to the lessor. If the CAAT considers that the airline no longer has a possessory right, it can deregister the aircraft. If the CAAT decides not to deregister, a lessor must initiate a court action or arbitration to compel deregistration. Even if the CAAT deregisters the aircraft, the lessor must still file a lawsuit to collect the usually significant debt that the airline owes, as the CAAT does not have the power to order the airline to pay any monetary damages.

Depending on the circumstances, a lessor may want to keep the aircraft on the ground during the repossession process. A court order is needed to accomplish this. In practice, it is difficult for lessors to obtain an emergency injunction from a Thai court to ground an aircraft. The lessor must prove that the grounding is needed because of a risk to public safety or national security. The court will usually reject emergency requests to ground an aircraft based strictly on economic issues.

Even for non-emergency injunction requests, the lessor must present strong evidence that the airline is about to remove the aircraft from Thailand – and may not return. Such evidence is difficult to obtain. Moreover, courts are reluctant to ground aircraft for fear that the grounding would inconvenience passengers, and generally interfere with an airline’s business operations.

After the lessor files its case in court, the parties will litigate and hold a trial. If the lessor is successful, the court will order the airline to deregister the aircraft. The court will usually issue the judgment about two to three months from the end of trial. Both parties are entitled to appeal the judgment within one month from the judgment being issued. Including the time it takes for appeals to be made, it may take a lessor two or more years in total to recover the aircraft.

Lessors attempting repossession should note how Thai courts consider rulings from foreign jurisdictions. Thailand is not a party to the 2001 Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment, so a party attempting to legally repossess an aircraft cannot rely on international standards as a legal authority. Thai courts do not enforce foreign court judgments ordering airlines to surrender or ground aircraft. The lessor is required to submit a new claim to the court for repossession. However, the lessor can present a foreign court judgment to the Thai courts as evidence in such a claim.

After the lessor gains possession of the aircraft from the airline, it will need to export the aircraft from Thailand. To do so, a lessor can apply for customs clearance in its own name, and does not need cooperation from the airline. The lessor will also need additional permission to ferry the aircraft. After the CAAT deregisters the aircraft in Thailand, the lessor needs to register the aircraft in another country. The lessor can then submit a request for a flight permit to the CAAT, which, once granted, will allow the lessor to fly the aircraft from Thailand to a different location, successfully completing the repossession process.

Thailand provides a unique aviation market due to its status as a travel destination—and resultant high number of airline operators. But with many operators inexperienced in running an airline, defaults on aircraft payments are inevitable. Aircraft leasing companies should have a clear understanding of the legal hurdles and practical challenges related to repossession from the beginning of any transaction.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Aviation

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

May 8, 2021
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused the aviation industry to face arguably the most challenging time in its history. Airlines across the world, including in Southeast Asia, have been deeply affected by the prolonged and universal halt to international air travel. Domestic flights have provided some much-needed revenue to local carriers. But with multiple and unforeseen waves of new virus cases, lockdowns and other travel restrictions, and a public generally fearful of travelling, domestic flights have not been enough to make up for the massive shortfall in revenue lost from international air travel. Despite all the current gloom for the aviation industry, there may be light at the end of the tunnel as the world glimpses life after the pandemic. This is mainly down to vaccinations. With people confined to their homes for over a year in many Western countries, there is pent-up demand to travel. As those people are vaccinated, they will want to get out of their houses and fly somewhere. Moreover, household savings have increased for those fortunate enough to be working throughout the pandemic in their homes, and with few options to go out and spend. This combination of travel demand and increased disposable income is a strong combination for positive growth in the post-pandemic aviation industry. In the context of Vietnam, which to date has managed to minimize outbreaks from occurring in the country, from around the middle of September 2020 airlines announced to fly again and increase the frequency of many domestic flights. Airlines also sought to restore some international commercial routes to meet the needs of passengers, contribute to connecting trade, and maintaining production and business activities. However, despite domestic demand, true recovery and economic success can only occur when passengers can again travel internationally, both inbound and outbound. As such, the critical
Read More
April 19, 2021
Thailand has made significant changes to its statutory interest rate framework for the first time in almost a century. Since 1925, the statutory interest rate codified in Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code (the CCC) has remained at 7.5% per year. But with Covid-19 having an unprecedented impact on the Thai economy, the Thai Government, via emergency decree, has reduced the statutory rate. While the decree is largely aimed at providing relief to hard-hit SMEs and individual debtors, the amendments have broader implications for doing business in Thailand. Main Changes The new interest rate revisions are contained within the Emergency Decree Amending the Civil and Commercial Code B.E. 2564 (2021) (the Emergency Decree), which was published in the Government Gazette on April 10, 2021 and came into effect on April 11, 2021. The Emergency Decree amends Sections 7 and 224 of the CCC, which stated the previous statutory interest rate of 7.5% per year. The Emergency Decree makes three major changes. The first involves a reduction of the statutory interest rate from 7.5% per year to 3% per year in Section 7. The new 3% annual rate is subject to review every three years by the Ministry of Finance. The interest rate is subject to further change later by a royal decree. The second change concerns money debts under Section 224 of the CCC. The previous version of Section 224 stated, among other things, that a money debt based on a default bears interest of 7.5% per year. Under the Emergency Decree, the new actual statutory default interest rate is the statutory interest rate stated in Section 7 with an additional rate of 2% per year. The result is a 5% annual statutory default interest rate. Since the statutory default interest rate is based in part on the Section 7
Read More
February 23, 2021
As many are already aware, following the change of government in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, a draft Cyber Security Law was proposed which attracted widespread criticism. However, less attention has been paid to significant amendments to two existing laws, some of which have a similar effect to parts of the draft Cyber Security Law. In other words, while the draft Cyber Security Law has not progressed further and is under public scrutiny, significant elements of it have found their way into law in Myanmar by other routes. Because these amendments are already law, it is very important that individuals and businesses in Myanmar understand their implications. Amendments to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), or the “Privacy Law,” was amended on February 13, 2021, less than two weeks after the military government came into power. These amendments chiefly address the power of the government to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests; to extend detention without judicial oversight; and to carry out broad surveillance and investigation activities that could intrude on individual privacy. The amendments accomplish this by suspending various sections of the Privacy Law for as long as the State Administration Council (the military body now governing Myanmar) is in power. The suspended sections include the following: Section 5: Search, seizure, and arrest without civilian observation The relevant part of Section 5 of the Privacy Law states, “The responsible authorities shall … when acting in accordance with existing law, not enter into a person’s residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest, unless accompanied by minimum of two witnesses who should comprise Ward or Village Tract Administrators…”. The suspension
Read More
February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions
Read More